David Dawes nawypisowywał(a): > You can find it if you go to the freetype.org ftp site in France. > I didn't see tarballs on the SourceForge site either.
Oh, thanks! But that's strange, SourceForge doesn't know about the newest release, even "official freetype mirrors" are very out of date... it's like they're hiding it from the public... >>"(...) If the directory dir is a standard system include directory, the >>option (this means -I) is ignored" > > Do the gcc people give a reason for not allowing a system directory to > be "blessed" with -I? I wouldn't call it a "reason", but the manual puts it like this: "(...) the option is ignored to ensure that the default search order for system directories and the special treatment of system headers are not defeated". > There is no ft2build.h in the xc/lib/font/FreeType directory in > 4.3.99.901 (it got moved to the only place that uses it: > xc/lib/font/FreeType/module). That's why I asked if your 4.3.99.901 > source was "clean" :-) I did see this problem myself before moving > it. But... but my tree is clean. It just isn't a "pure" 4.3.99.901 tarball, because some time ago I've downloaded 4.3.99.14 and then gradually patched it up. But all I did was unpack the archive, apply the newest patch and repack it. I tried not to break anything, really :) I know that not all changes can be registered by diff (and reproduced by patch) but I expected it only to affect non-textual files, like some images or maybe binary fonts. Diff&patch are pretty reliable when it comes to creating/removing text files, at least that's my impression. But I guess you'd need to use the '-N' diff option to get that behavior (at least with GNU diff), and the official patches don't do that, they only use "-u". Is the -N something available only with some special versions of diff? Or would it be possible to generate future patches with -uN ? > If there's a reliable way of knowing when to include <FlexLexer.h>, > then we probably should include it. I've just noticed that my FlexLexer.h requires iostream and maybe some more C++ parts. Maybe that was the reason for merging parts of it into twm - to avoid the dependencies on a C++ compiler? If you would include this header, you would probably need something like g++ to compile twm. Not very nice, is it now. So maybe it would be easier to just play along and keep it the way it is now... just patch twm up a bit so that it compiles with older and newer flex releases... Would my, ekhm, "patch" cause trouble with older flex versions? -- \hoppke (Grzegorz "Grażyna" Niewęgłowski) http://lubuska.zapto.org/~hoppke/ _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
